Richard_Henderson writes "This week ICANN's General Assembly voted on a proposal to ask the DoC to initiate a Re-Bid and possibly find a replacement for ICANN to carry out the technical administration of the Internet. It was a massive snub for the ICANN leadership.
A close analysis of the votes of each person, which are recorded at the ICANN DNSO site shows an overwhelming majority in favour of a re-bid which could result in the replacement of ICANN."
I found it interesting to carry out an analysis of this week's votes. I was curious to see how people had voted. Had one block of people all voted for Motion 1 (the re-bid) and another even bigger block of people voted for Motion 2 (softer approach)?
It appears that a large majority were so much opposed to what ICANN are doing, that they were prepared to vote in favour of BOTH motions (the more extreme one AND the softer one).
Indeed, it turned out that only 38 out of the 164 voters who backed Motion 2 (soft option) did not also vote in favour of Motion 2. Put another way 126 out of 164 voters who backed Motion 2 also wanted to go further and called for a re-bid by voting for Motion 1 as well.
As a percentage, this means that only 17% of all those who voted, voted for Motion 2 alone.
77% of the Motion 2 voters also wanted to go further and call for a re-bid, and voted for Motion 1 as well.
Here are the actual voting patterns (I start at the "Defend ICANN" extreme and end at the "Anti ICANN" extreme):
Against Both Motions: 25 people
Against Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2: 2 people
Voted Just for Motion 2: 1 person
Voted for Motion 2 and against Motion 1: 25 people
Voted for Motion 2 and abstained on Motion 1: 12 people
* * * * *
Abstained in both votes: 3 people
* * * * *
Voted for Motion 2 but also wanted to go further and Voted for Motion 1 as well: 126 people
Voted for Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2: 14 people
Voted for Motion 1 and against Motion 2: 8 people
Voted Just for Motion 1: 2 people
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
What is absolutely obvious is that the majority of people wanted the more extreme action of a Re-Bid, and that this was the most popular motion because 77% of Motion 2's voters ALSO wanted to go further and have the Re-Bid too.
There is absolutely no evidence that if people ALREADY want a Re-Bid, they are implying they want a soft approach to ICANN first. That would be a perverse interpretation, when they could have abstained on 1, voted against it, or not voted at all on it. Clearly it is more obvious to interpret those who voted for both as carrying out a "Protest" vote, basically saying, we'll support ANY action if it will clear out the status quo... ideally a re-bid, but if not, then any other method that will bring about change.
This is pretty obviously the outcome of last week's vote.
[Editor's note: see also the earlier ICANNWatch item on this topic. FWIW, here are my personal views. Another way of explaining the same data are that a majority of those voting in the GA want the re-bid now, and that if ICANN's reform plans don't make substantial and positive changes, an even larger group will agree that it's come to that, or something darn close to it. Since there is in fact no chance at all that any rebid could happen before the Board's next public meeting, it seems to me that in the long run the second vote may turn out to have the real significance, especially if the Board rubber-stamps the sort of proposals it seems likely the Reform Committee is preparing to unveil. The significance of the first vote in the short term is as an illustration of the growing level of frustration with the ICANN insiders' tactics. I think it's unlikely that anything like this result could have happened even nine months ago. - mf]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.